Much has been written about the Anglican Covenant, and we are confident
that much more will be written before its ultimate fate is determined.
Good material is hard to find, particularly if posted on blogs, which
tend to highlight recent posts and obscure older ones. What we have
tried to do below is to collect material that we believe is particularly
helpful in understanding the Covenant and appreciating its deficiencies.

We offer three lists of materials:
Institutional Documents (the Covenant
itself can be found here),
Commentary, and
Miscellaneous Materials (including
news releases from the No Anglican Covenant Coalition). We expect
to be adding to and refining theses lists continuously, so we suggest
that you check back often.

We ask for your feedback on what we present
here, as well as suggestions for improvements. Go to
Contact to learn how to communicate with
us.

Institutional
Documents

Conservative bishops from across the world
met in Dallas to develop their strategy for the upcoming 1998
Lambeth Conference, at which their major achievement was the
passage of
Resolution I.10. Although this conference did not advocate
adoption of a “covenant,” the Dallas Statement includes assertions
such as the following: “We call upon the Lambeth Conference
to empower the Primates’ Meeting to become a place of appeal
for those Anglican bodies who are oppressed, marginalized, or
denied faithful episcopal oversight by their own bishops. In
such situations, a way must be found to provide pastoral support,
oversight and formal ecclesiastical relationships for faithful
people.” (See also “The
Anglican Covenant: Where It Came From.”)

This resolution on
human sexuality was passed after heated maneuvering and debate.
Unlike other Lambeth resolutions, it is often cited as the “teaching
of the Anglican Communion.” It provided the excuse for the upset
expressed in 2003 after the gay, partnered Gene Robinson was
selected as Bishop of New Hampshire by The Episcopal Church.

After the Episcopal
Church’s General Convention agreed to consecrate Gene Robinson,
conservative American bishops asked for an emergency meeting
of the Primates. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams quickly
granted that request. This statement, issued at the end of the
meeting, called for what became the Windsor Report.

Information related to the development
of the Covenant, as well as the various drafts, including the
final one. Also included is a video message from the Archbishop
of Canterbury on the occasion of the completion of the Covenant.

The Primates met in Northern Ireland at the
Dromantine Retreat and Conference Centre and considered the
Windsor Report, with which the expressed general agreement.
They asked that the American and Canadians withdraw their representatives
from the Anglican Consultative Council until the 2008 Lambeth
conference. The churches were also invited to justify their
actions at the next ACC meeting (see next entry).

The Primates met in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
The recommendations of the Primates are not easily summarized.
Suffice it to say that the Primates injected themselves deeply
into conflicts within The Episcopal Church. Among other things,
they urged the suspension of lawsuits over property in The Episcopal
Church. Neither side in these disputes responded to this suggestion.

A declaration seen by some traditionalists
as an alternative to the Anglican Covenant. It offers a more
conservative statement of belief than that contained in the
first three sections of the Covenant.

A guide to studying the Covenant
offered by The Episcopal Church. It includes references to selective
commentary on the covenant, many of which include hyperlinks.
The study guide is quite neutral in tone. The introductory section
setting out the history of the covenant is quite helpful.

Draft text of the motion by which it is proposed that the
General Synod should express its acceptance of the Anglican
Covenant. An Act of Synod does not have legislative force in
the same way as a Measure or a Canon, and therefore does not
also require Parliamentary approval. It is the method that has
been used in the past to express Church of England approval
of ecumenical agreements with other churches, or groups of churches,
e.g., with the Porvoo Communion. GS 1809 was approved by the
General Synod 24 November 2010, but it is being sent to the
dioceses and will be subject to a final General Synod vote.

This is a complete transcript of everything
that was said during the General Synod debate on the morning
of Wednesday, 24 November 2010. There was one following motion,
dealing with the issue of requiring a 2/3 majority at final
approval, which was not reached because time ran out, and this
is now scheduled for debate on the afternoon of Monday, 7 February
2011.

This contains the formal instructions to dioceses
about how, and by when, they are to respond to the reference
from General Synod. The procedural details are standard for
all such referrals under the Constitution and Standing Orders
of the Synod. The deadline for responses has been set as Monday
30 April 2012. The document contains only very brief details
of the “alternative perspectives” on the Covenant that emerged
in the debate but does invite dioceses to seek further resource
material, if they wish, from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s
Secretary for Anglican Communion Affairs at Lambeth Palace.

This is a guide for facilitators leading 75–90
minute discussions of the Covenant in Diocese of California
deaneries. This two-page guide indicates that certain questions
not addressed in the Executive Council’s
Study Guide should be considered.

Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons
of The Episcopal Church

15 February 2011

This report is intended to advise the Executive
Council regarding polity changes needed if the Covenant is adopted.
It was not released until 24 June 2011. The report asserts that
extensive changes in the constitution and canons of the church
would be required if the Covenant is adopted by The Episcopal
Church. It is notable for saying that the Introduction to the
Anglican Covenant has a significant influence on interpretation
of the Covenant.

This 54-page guide is designed “to help people
in parishes and dioceses dig more deeply into the wording, and
the meaning behind the words ofThe Anglican Communion Covenant,
and to discuss together what the implications of adoption might
be,” according to an
introductory story from the Canadian church.

This report was written “to provide advice
on the legal and constitutional implications and consequences
of a decision to adopt or not to adopt the proposed Covenant”
by the Anglican Church of Canada. Although some of the report
is specific to Canada, the report identifies many serious general
problems with the Covenant text. An
Executive Summary is also available.

This is a report prepared for the 2012 General
Convention of The Episcopal Church advising on a response to
the Covenant. The report recommends a resolution stating that
The Episcopal Church “is unable to adopt the Anglican Covenant
in its present form.”

Commentary

Bates investigates the uproar in the Anglican
Communion brought to a head by the election of Gene Robinson
in 2003. This book was written in 2004 and updated in 2005.
Much of the book now seems like ancient history, but it is relevant
history.

Grieb, who is on the faculty of Virginia Theological
Seminary and served on the Covenant Design Group, made this
report to the bishops of The Episcopal Church. This report provides
insight into the purpose of the Covenant and the intent of the
primates.

Harris unpacks the political maneuverings behind
the push for the Anglican Covenant and concludes: “Many hoped
that the Anglican Covenant would be in itself a ‘tool’ for unity.
It has become, however, an instrument of division.”

Sherrod argues that the covenant “seeks to
wrap rings of bureaucratic barbed wire around the Holy Spirit,
imprisoning the Spirit in processes of discipline designed to
enforce unanimity of theology, of interpretation of Scripture,
and who knows what else.”

Covenant proponents would have us believe that
the Windsor Report and Anglican Covenant were informed by an
objective view of the Communion. Bagshaw demonstrates that they
are instead the product of a conservative agenda predating the
election of Gene Robinson and, at least implicitly, endorsed
by Rowan Williams.

This is a sermon in opposition to the Covenant
by a lay preacher in Newcastle upon Tyne. It suggests how the
case against the Covenant might be presented to an audience
unfamiliar with the issues. Terry describes the Covenant as
a “fetter” and a “manacle.”

French responds to a
plea by Canon Alyson Barnett-Cowan, Director for Unity Faith
and Order, to give the Covenant a fair hearing. He says her
suggestion that opponents have not read the Covenant is insulting,
and he complains of the disingenuousness of the euphemism “relational
consequences.”

Whalon is Bishop in Charge of the Convocation
of American Churches in Europe, part of The Episcopal Church.
This essay for Anglicans Online, raises the question
of whether we are better off by ostracizing those churches in
disagreement with the rest of the Communion.

Like the Stevenson essay (above),
Naughton looks at the Covenant as a legal document. He finds
it completely lacking in checks and balances, calling the structure
it would create “governance by hurt feelings.”

This essay reviews arguments made for and against
the Covenant just before the Church of England General Synod
was to vote on it. Virtually all the material mentioned in this
Ekklesia essay is listed above or referred to in the works cited
here.

This column, by the author of
A Church at War
is ostensibly an obituary of Dean Colin Slee. Written the day
after the Church of England General Synod chose to move the
Anglican Covenant toward adoption, it is largely a commentary
on the state of affairs the day after the vote.

The is Part 2 of Hall’s series of essays on
the Covenant. (The first part is
here and the third part
here.) The second essay is a good, concise description of
the contents of the Covenant with little additional commentary.

The No Anglican Covenant Coalition analyzes
what happened in the General Synod, which sent the Anglican
Covenant to Church of England dioceses for consideration. The
document strongly criticizes the role played by the Archbishop
of Canterbury.

One-page list of 10 major reasons to oppose
the Anglican Covenant, this document is particularly helpful
to those unfamiliar with the Covenant or those who are preparing
arguments against it. The document is formatted for A4 stationery.
A letter-size version of the file can be found
here.

French deals with the argument that failure
to adopt the Anglican Covenant would represent a change
in the nature of the Communion, which many would say has the
relationship quite backwards. He concludes with a helpful description
of the Communion from Canada’s former Primate.

This essay, by the general secretary of
Church
Society, appeared in the group’s Winter 2011 issue of
Cross†Way. Phillips, who has a very conservative
outlook, calls the Covenant “a waste of time.” He finds the
doctrinal statements of the Covenant too weak, but he agrees
with liberals that the centralization of authority created by
the Covenant would be a bad thing.

This is the fourth essay in Hall’s five-part
series on the Covenant. (Part 3 can be found
here.) Hall discusses reasons to oppose the covenant. Her
final essay did not appear until 18 April and took no firm
position on the Covenant.

The annual convention of the Diocese of West
Texas adopted this statement concerning the Covenant. Although
it urges the 2012 General Convention of The Episcopal Church
to adopt the Covenant, the statement expresses reservations
about the Covenant’s effectiveness. A description of the deliberation
on the statement can be found
here.

Anglicans Online, which is not known for its
political stands, declared itself against the Covenant in this
front-page essay. The essay asserts that “the looseness of the
Anglican Communion” allows it to be nimble in the modern world.

Modern Church created this page of resources
specifically to be used in discussions of the Covenant within
the Church of England. Most of the original documents are of
interest to a wider audience and are described separately below.
(Dates are not clearly indicated on this page and its documents,
so we have chosen a nominal date and assigned it to all the
Modern Church documents on this page.)

This helpful document is rather substantial.
Not only does it review the history of the Covenant, but it
also places the Covenant within the context of competing philosophical
schools. As such, it is helpful in illuminating the deeper issues
behind the push for a covenant. (Also available in
PDF and
Microsoft Word versions.)

This is clearly intended as a brief publicity
piece for use in the Church of England, but it could be modified
for use elsewhere. After a bit of history, it concludes with
10 reasons why the English church should not adopt the Covenant.
(Also available in a two-page
Microsoft Word version, as well as a
PDF and
Microsoft Word version for A5 paper.)

This is a leaflet for A5 paper. It makes a
very brief case against Covenant adoption. The document would
have to be greatly modified to use outside the Church of England,
but a
Microsoft Word version is available that can be freely adapted.

This is the slightly edited version of a talk
given in Pittsburgh in a debate on the Anglican Covenant. Rugh,
though a liberal Episcopal priest, makes what he calls a conservative
case for defeating the Anglican Covenant.

This is another talk against the Covenant from
Pittsburgh (Deimel summarizes his arguments and provides some
context for his talk on his
blog.) This document emphasizes technical peculiarities
of the Covenant and its potential harm to Anglicanism. Deimel
then speculates on how The Episcopal Church might deal with
the Covenant.

This is a collection of essays by prominent
Episcopalians sponsored by the Chicago Consultation, which supports
the full inclusion of LGBT persons in The Episcopal Church and
Anglican Communion. The document describes itself as “Essays
and Study Questions.” The essays deal with issues seldom discussed
in the context of the proposed Covenant. In a sense, it is the
best Covenant study guide produced to date—certainly for Episcopalians,
at any rate. It does not suggest that the Covenant should be
rejected, but that message can be read between the lines.

Members of the Diocese of Los Angeles attending
the 2012 General Convention of The Episcopal Church announced
that they cannot endorse the Covenant. (An alternate URL is
cited here, as the original page is no longer unavailable.)

The lay and clerical deputies to the 2012 General
Convention of the Episcopal Church summarize the conversations
in the diocese about the Covenant in this letter. The indaba
process is praised; the Covenant is not.

This is the reaction of the Diocese of Michigan
2012 General Convention deputation to the Anglican Covenant.
The letter concludes by declaring that the deputies “recommend
against adoption of the Anglican Covenant by the Episcopal Church.”

This is the second and final part of Deimel’s
analysis of the first three sections of the Anglican Covenant.
This post covers Sections 2 and 3 and offers concluding remarks.
Deimel’s complete analysis is also available as a single PDF
file
here.

O’Brien, who is a deputy to the Episcopal Church’s
General Convention from the Diocese of Southeast Florida, gave
this PowerPoint presentation—rendered here as a PDF file—to
a Province IV Synod. Because there are no presentation notes,
one has to read between the lines a bit, but the author makes
a strong case for why The Episcopal Church (and perhaps other
churches) should not adopt the Covenant.

This is a one-page handout on the Covenant
designed as a complete introduction to the issues involved.
It is a PDF file formatted for A4 paper. The same text formatted
for letter-size paper is available
here.
(Click here for news
release about the handout.)

After the one-page version of “A Short Introduction”
(see above) was released,
this easier-to-read two-page version was released for A4 paper.
A two-page version for letter-size paper is available
here.

This talk in opposition to the Covenant was
presented at the Synod of the Diocese of Truro. Gay makes a
strong case against the Covenant, though some of his arguments
are specific to the Church of England.

Clatworthy responds to a pro-Covenant essay,
“Anglican
Covenant—Bishop’s Council” written by Peter Doll, Canon
Librarian of Norwich Cathedral, and forwarded by Archbishop
of Canterbury Rowan Williams to Church of England bishops. Clatworthy
argues that Doll misrepresents Americans and The Episcopal Church.

Lightcap’s post includes two videos responding
to the recent video from the Archbishop of Canterbury titled
“Why
the Covenant Matters.” The videos are from Oxford historian
Diarmaid MacCulloch and Episcopal Church gay activist Louie
Crew. MacCulloch counters conventional arguments for the Covenant,
whereas Crew disputes Rowan Williams’ contention that the Covenant
is not punative.

This page lists churches that have made a decision
on the Covenant and informed the Secretary General of that decision.
It also contains links to responses from various churches and
other parties to the various Covenant drafts.

Anglican Journal reported that, when
the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada meets in
July, it will be presented with a resolution to delay action
on the Covenant until 2016 and monitor developments.

It is assumed that the General Convention
of The Episcopal Church will make an actual decision on the
Covenant when it meets beginning 25 June 2015. This essay
discusses the two proposed resolutions concerning the
Covenant.

Secretary to the Covenant
Design Group Bishop Gregory Cameron and moderator of the No
Anglican Covenant Coalition debated the Covenant on BBC Radio
4 on 7 November 2010. The audio of this encounter is no longer
on the Web, and the BBC will not allow a transcript to be posted.
This document is a description of the debate.

The No Anglican Covenant
Coalition explains its position in this letter to the Archbishop
of Canterbury, asks him to reconsider his support of the Covenant,
and invites him into dialogue. A belated and rather perfunctory
reply from Lambeth Palace, dated 9 February 2011, has been
received.

Haller has constructed
a side-by-side comparison of the St. Andrew’s draft, Ridley
Cambridge draft, and final draft of the Anglican Covenant. He
draws no conclusions, but his comparison does show the evolution
of the covenant idea.

News release from the
No Anglican Covenant Coalition. The Coalition descries the lack
of balance in the materials about the Anglican Covenant sent
to Church of England dioceses, as well as in the recent materials
issued by the Inter-Anglican Standing Committee on Unity, Faith
and Order (IASCUFO).

The No Anglican Covenant
Coalition proposed this resolution on the Covenant for adoption
by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church. (The resolution
is available as a
Microsoft Word
file or as a
PDF file.)
When this resolution was publicized,
three
very different resolutions had already proposed.

No Anglican
Covenant Coalition news release about the outcome of the
Primates Meeting held 11–15 January 2016. The primates
declared sanctions against The Episcopal Church for it
authorization of same-sex marriage.